The Web

[Fake Messiah]

Just because the speaker is conservative doesn't mean he is speaking nonsense. For example, he says:

The essence of pornography is taking what is really an experience between two subjects (a man and a woman) and turning it into a consumable commodity. Sex is not a product. It’s not something that can instantly downloaded by an isolated individual and then discarded after it accomplishes its purpose. Sex is personal. It’s human. It’s experiential. Pornography, especially online pornography, creates an artificial product that cannot really satisfy, because it was taken from something that is ontologically different.

Well, he is talking nonsense. Who is he (or you) to dictate what will people find sexually gratifying or not? Seems like another self-righteous Christian nonsense.

Besides porn, there are many other ways that people find sexual gratification which is not just "between two subjects (a man and a woman)", like when women have sex with vibrators and men with plastic vaginas - all without the so-called "consequences" (whatever they may be).

[SimpleCaveman]

But it's a bit shady that you felt you should keep that part a secret.

Secret? No.

I came across this quote in a larger podcast. You can search for the source, but I’m not interested in discussing that. I’m only interested in the concepts expressed here.

The article you found was not the podcast that I ran across, though. I did not read the article, which is why I didn’t want to discuss it. I thought the quote was interesting, though, so brought it up here.

I am not surprised...in fact I think it fell right in line with your online persona.

Do you see this as evidence for the quote? It’s very easy to create an online persona that is different from who we are in real life.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi Belacqua,

Thanks for the post. Two things before I respond.

First, to make the conversation more manageable, I’m going to break this into two parts, this one about the quote and another about the article it came from.

Second,let me emphasize that I don’t really have an endpoint for this conversation, regardless of what nwansdastfu thinks. I think the conversation itself can be fruitful.

What do you think about this description? How much do you see this playing out?

I think there's a lot of truth in what he says.

And I'm sure he acknowledges that the Internet has many legitimate and helpful uses. After all, he has agreed to have his interview put on the Internet.

We all make use of maps and databases and things like that. Find a medical specialist near you, all that.

But there's no doubt that the Internet has shaped people's behavior and encouraged undesirable things as well.

I agree that there’s a lot of good on the “world wide internet computer web” (as Monk would say). I probably don’t go 5 minutes without using it. Even when I mow the lawn I’m listening to music or a podcast from the net.

I agree, too, that it has shaped our behavior. (in my pop-philosophy way) It’s almost a paradigm shift in how we think of ourselves and others. The separation between our will and reality – as I understand it begun by Descartes, Nietzsche, etc. – is very easy, too easy, to do on the web.

Online gaming is a good example of this. We create our own reality. Ready Player One and Free Guy both used this idea. But it happens here, too. People spew vitriol on social media that they would be embarrassed to say in real life. When we detach our will from reality, we lose a lot of what makes us human.

Your point about the risks is important. The scams that we get trapped in are so easy because of the internet. Men impersonating young kids to get other kids to trust them can happen much easier with the internet. This quote is naming this phenomenon in philosophical terms but we’ve all seen the effects.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi Belacqua,

Thanks again for the post.

I think the whole interview is worth reading:

I actually haven’t read the interview, which was another reason I wasn’t interested in discussing it. The quote was referenced in a podcast about writing. Mark Bauerlein interviewed Andrew Pudewa about his organization Institute for Excellence in Writing. It was a fascinating discussion about the writing levels and skills of people today, the reasons we are so bad at it and what the Institute does to overcome it. I realize that’s a third topic but one that I’d be interested in discussing if someone wants to start a new thread (or I’ll start if someone wants).

My niece has degrees in early childhood development, and she is extremely strict about her twins' computer use. She has been horrified at all the times she has seen little kids get handed a tablet just as a way to keep them quiet.

My understanding is that at least some of the tech leaders who put this stuff out are very strict about their own kids getting screen time. The podcast also stated, from the article it seems, that "if you’re wondering why you struggle with addiction to your smartphone or the internet, it’s because you’re using the tool the way it was designed to be used."

Being a statistician, I see articles, case studies, etc, about how this is done. It’s all based on science, another tool that is used for nefarious purposes and we don’t even realize it.

I am extremely grateful for some things the Internet has given us. When I moved to Japan it cost a fortune to telephone my family in America, but now we can do hours-long Skype calls for free. And I'm sure that my academic research would have taken YEARS longer without Google. But I am very glad that my mind was mostly formed before the Internet took over.

I agree wholeheartedly!

[SimpleCaveman]

Just because the speaker is conservative doesn't mean he is speaking nonsense.

Well, he is talking nonsense. Who is he (or you) to dictate what will people find sexually gratifying or not? Seems like another self-righteous Christian nonsense.

Hmm, you didn’t read the article, did you? The author isn’t dictating what people do but trying to describe the reality.

[Angrboda]

There seems to be a growing awareness of how addictive and deformative some of these technologies are. There’s a very real public health crisis element to this. It’s not too difficult to imagine a future in which smartphones have the same kind of stigma attached to them as cigarettes.

[brewer]

Hmm, you didn’t read the article, did you? The author isn’t dictating what people do but trying to describe the reality.

Based on the snippet supplied by Bel, his description appears to include a fair bit of judgement.

And please, sex/porn has existed and been a product for thousands of years. The internet has simply made it's access easier and harder to control.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi Angrboda,

There seems to be a growing awareness of how addictive and deformative some of these technologies are. There’s a very real public health crisis element to this. It’s not too difficult to imagine a future in which smartphones have the same kind of stigma attached to them as cigarettes.

Yes, I agree that there are some who are seeing it this way. Given our culture, I don’t see what the answer is. As has been said, the internet is a tool that provides a lot of benefits. Yet, it seems that even the things that seem to be benefits can have unexpected negative side effects. (He says as he pops his third Reeses peanut butter cup.) It would be unfortunate if it had that kind of stigma.

The individualism that dominates our culture feeds right into the internet. Self-gratification without the need for others (porn, likes, whatever) feeds the addiction and removes us from our humanity. I think Black Mirror had an episode like that.

I see the internet as better and worse than cigarettes. It would be interesting if a stigma got to that level and being on your phone was banned in restaurants. I suppose that’s not a bad thing. My wife and I try to avoid phones in restaurants ourselves, but it’s not easy. Instead, we play versions of Fluxx while we wait. It’s easier to have a conversation if we want and passes the time when we don’t.

I think that the disembodied habitat, in part, makes hate and meanness easier. When we make our own reality, then we are always right. (Doctor Who just had an episode on that.) Maybe greater transparency would be helpful. But that can be trouble, too.

In the end, I think you were right.

I believe Aristotle had the right of it.  All things in moderation.  The rest is codswallop.

But, given our current culture, I think it will be a long hard road to achieve.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi brewer,

Hmm, you didn’t read the article, did you? The author isn’t dictating what people do but trying to describe the reality.

Based on the snippet supplied by Bel, his description appears to include a fair bit of judgement.

Not sure what you’re saying. Yes, he is making a judgment, still not dictating. I’m not going down that road in the discussion, though. Didn’t want to in the beginning.

But you bring up another problem with the internet that can only be overcome by moderation and self-discipline. We base our judgment on snippets, headlines, reels, and such. There is a lack of depth in our understanding of situations and events. When we’re talking about real problems – such as war, politics, immigration, poverty – that ignorance only makes it worse. It makes us worse. It increases the meanness, hate, stupidity. Yes, that too has been going on for thousands of years, but, too, the internet has made that easier and harder to overcome.

Frankly, many people don’t want to understand better, especially if it goes against the reality they’ve contrived. And we’re back to the original quote. This is possible because on the web “there is no givenness to reality, there is simply individual will.”

What do others think?

[Angrboda]

That poses an interesting parallel, as religion has the same issues in that there is no givenness to the reality of religious truths; they exist solely in imagination.